Berechnung der Wärmeabfuhr durch Naturkonvektion im stationären Bereich bei gasgekühlten Reaktoren mit Hilfe Computer-Programm &quot;NAKOSTA&quot;

Singh, J.; Schneider, K. U.

Book/Report

FZJ-2016-02805

Berechnung der Wärmeabfuhr durch Naturkonvektion im stationären Bereich bei gasgekühlten Reaktoren mit Hilfe Computer-Programm "NAKOSTA"

Singh, J. ; Schneider, K. U.

1971
Kernforschungsanlage Jülich, Verlag Jülich

Jülich : Kernforschungsanlage Jülich, Verlag, Berichte der Kernforschungsanlage Jülich 770, 61 p. (1971)

Please use a persistent id in citations: http://hdl.handle.net/2128/11322

Report No.: Juel-0770-RG

Abstract: A computer program NAKOSTA (NAtural COnvection in the STAtionary Condition) was made which enables to calculate the heat transport by natural convection with a given course of surface temperature along a. defined, closed circuit. This circuit consists in essential of a heat-supplying and a heat-removing component. These two main components are divided into some axial zones in order to determine most exactly the local coolant-temperatures with a given mass flow under consideration of the corresponding heat transfer coefficient or overall heat transfer coefficient. At the same time, the local coefficients of pressure loss and thereby the local factors of pressure loss are calculated. An iteration procedure determines buoyancy and pressure loss along the circuit with the corresponding mass flow, and the removable heat amount per unit time. Some examples show different cooler arrangements and gases (helium, air, C0$_{2}$) and their effect to removable heat amounts atvarious system pressures. This shows that with C0$_{2}$ at system pressures between 10 and 20 bar and with the application of an optimized finned cooler an after-heat amount of more than 1 % of the thermal core power by normal operation can be removed. The same amount of after-heat could also be removed under these pressures with a tube cooler by using helium. The application of different fuel element types in the core, however, did not show a significant difference in after-heat removal.

Contributing Institute(s):